Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: The Cold

“Cold” is a word with multiple meanings.  It can refer to the temperature of one’s environment; an infectious malady of common origins; or the emotional unresponsiveness of someone.  It can even be an adverb delineating the complete knowledge or mastery of a subject, as in, “He knew it cold”.

But temperatures can be countered; common colds have multiple remedies (though one wonders if any of them are effective, as opposed to bed rest and drinking fluids); and the adverb form is merely an informal allowance of language in a vernacular left for the younger generation.  We are thus left with the state of emotional paralysis — identified in one’s own being, or in another.

For the injured or ill Federal employee who is filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, such an appropriate identification of the concept and definition related to the emotional reaction (or lack thereof) by one’s own agency and one’s co-workers should be expected.

While it is a welcome and unexpected surprise if one’s agency and co-workers respond otherwise, it is simply the nature of human beings to respond with a herd mentality, and for the most part, once the Federal or Postal employee reveals the intention to depart from one’s agency, the common response is one which can only be characterized as “cold”.

Why must it be this way?

There is no adequate explanation.  But for the Federal and Postal employee under FERS or CSRS, who has had to endure the often unthinking bureaucracy of the Federal Sector, such lack of warmth merely exacerbates the dire situation of one who suffers from a medical condition which necessitates filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.

It is, indeed, a puzzle; for in the harshness of winter, where the cold winds blow, the emotional coldness of one’s workplace is somewhat akin the common cold — a nagging sense that something has gone awry, but most Federal and Postal employees know that cold, anyway.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

 

Federal Gov. and USPS Disability Retirement: The Story Genre

There is quite obviously a human need to relate the narrative; of one’s community events, tragedies and triumphs; from the days of cave paintings to rote retelling of the group’s identity and character of historical form and content, the telling of one’s story is, and remains, a vital part or any community.

Technology has now replaced the gathering of the group around the community center with emails, tweeting, mediums of blogs; of electronic tablets and voice conveyers; but regardless of form, that sense of need in the “telling” and “listening” remains. The methodology of the “telling”, however, has changed in form and content over the years, as technology has greatly undermined the genre of the human narrative with distractions and diversions beyond the story-form. Our focus and attention, quite frankly, is not what it used to be.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, part of the preparatory phase of the process is to compile the “telling” of one’s narrative. How effective; how succinct and of manner of logical sequence; how coherent and persuasive; all depend upon the form and content of the genre of the human narrative. Factual foundations aside, it is the penultimate culmination of the telling of one’s story which will form the substantive basis of the administrative process.

It is not only a necessary part of the process of preparing and formulating a Federal Disability Retirement application; it is merely the continuation of satisfying that innate human need — of the “telling” of one’s story.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Medical Disability Retirement: Bureaucracy and the Objective Algorithm

On the one hand, objectivity can be viewed as a positive thing; for, with it, one is assured that all applications are treated equally, by the implementation of identical criteria across the board.  “Gut feelings”, personal beliefs, and that “sixth sense” is eliminated; and thus is fairness achieved by the equal treatment of all cases, and “exceptional circumstances” are not, and cannot be, considered.

What such an approach gains in large-scale application, however, may lose out in individual cases.  For, if experience and age accounts for anything, it should allow for decisions made outside of the mainstream of thought, based upon those very factors which make up the difference — wisdom from years of engaging in a particular endeavor.

The problem with the bureaucratization of a process is precisely that it fails to allow for exceptions; but concomitantly, it is precisely those unique circumstances which cry out for a carved-out exception.  In a Federal Disability Retirement application, submitted to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, there are always cases where all of the facts and circumstances reveal eligibility; but in applying the mathematical (and thoughtless) algorithm of criteria-based analysis, there may be something missing.  Perhaps the doctor would not, or could not, say exactly X; or the test results revealed nothing particularly significant.

In some ways, the medical conditions identified as Fibromyalgia or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome represent such scenarios.  In those instances, it is important to descriptively convey the human narrative in a particularly poignant manner.

The administrative bureaucracy is here to remain among us; to rise above the level of thoughtless application of a criteria, however, one must creatively encourage the phoenix to rise from the ashes of boredom, and span its wings to include those others who deserve the benefits of Federal Disability Retirement.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

OPM Disability Retirement: The Human Element & Application of the Law

It may well be that technological advances will one day allow for imputed algorithms to precisely calibrate and decide everything in life; but for the time being, we must all deal with the human element in the process of decision-making.  

Comparative stories abound about how X obtained disability retirement benefits with minimal documentary proof, and even less of an actual medical condition.  It is always an anomaly as to how one can possibly answer the query which involves the following:  “X told a friend of Y, who knows of Z who filed and got his Disability Retirement benefits approved within T-amount of time”.

The particulars of each case must always determine the outcome of the case; some stories become inflated with the telling of the narrative when passed through third parties multiple times; but, on the other hand, there is the possibility that the final narration of the story is entirely true.  The reason is because the human element is still the determinative factor in any Federal Disability Retirement application.  

There is no computerized algorithm which is applied in making a determination at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  And, so long as human beings continue to remain a part of the administrative, bureaucratic process in scrutinizing a Federal Disability Retirement application, by analyzing the content and substance and applying the relevant laws, there will never be a perfect continuity or consistency of application.  

In some ways, this is a good thing; for, as each human being is unique, so the story of each medical condition and the impact upon one’s inability to perform all of the essential elements of one’s positional duties, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, is also particularized and unparalleled.  May it be so in the future, lest we ourselves become mere drones in this world of conventionalized perspectives.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Human Factor

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, the self-contradiction involved in the entire process is that the Federal Disability Retirement packet is being submitted as a “paper presentation” to people at the Office of Personnel Management, yet, concurrently, the preparation of the submission is done with the intent of eliminating the “human factor”, and instead to meet all of the critical elements and the legal burden of proof.  

The human factor necessarily involves human elements, and therefore the potential for errors.  There is no mathematical formula in preparing a Federal Disability Retirement application.  It is not an exact science, and one cannot predict the guarantee of a Federal Disability Retirement application as to its approval.  

Because of the human element involved, one can only attempt to formulate the packet by inoculating against the potential of human errors, and that means that one must understand and interpret all of the legal criteria which are necessary for a successful approach to the process.  The human factor is countered by more human factors — that is why there is a process of appeals — before administrative judges, and Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  The appellate process is a further attempt to review the possibility of human errors, and an attempt to correct such human errors.  

If there was a mathematical construct which could precisely determine the eligibility of each Federal Disability Retirement submission, and there was unanimous agreement that the computer model was fair and without error, perhaps such a computer program will one day make the determination of an approval or denial of a Federal Disability Retirement application.  That is doubtful, however, because we are dealing with human beings, human medical conditions, and human suffering.  As such, the human factor can never be entirely eliminated, and nor should it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Human Narrative

Ultimately, of course, a Federal Disability Retirement application under either FERS or CSRS is based upon a “human narrative” — delineating, describing and revealing (sorry — I could not think of an appropriate third word in this attempted alliteration which begins with the letter “d”) an individual’s story of one’s medical condition, the impact upon such condition upon one’s ability/inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job, and the further impact upon one’s routine of daily living (yes, we tend to forget that third part on SF 3112A, which asks about how one’s medical condition impacts other aspects of one’s life).  

Is it a story which “touches” someone at the Office of Personnel Management?  If one reads enough of the denial letters from the Office of Personnel Management (and only an attorney who handles such cases would have access to denial letters other than the one which is addressed to a particular applicant), one begins to realize that the Case Worker at the Office of Personnel Management is merely applying a set of legal criteria in a mechanical, almost assembly-line like manner.  

There is very little humanity involved in the review and determination by the Office of Personnel Management.  Now, one may argue that there could not be “another way” of making a determination — for, to show human emotion, compassion, sympathy or empathy would be contrary to the mandate of “the law”, and that is probably true.  One hopes, however, that the human narrative which is described in the Applicant’s Statement of Disability touches — in some way — such that it triggers a determination of approval based upon the law.  This, because if it is merely “the law” which is applied by OPM, then that implies that one must “know the law”; and knowledge of the law is rarely shown, and even more rarely applied, by the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire